Sentences with phrase «effects on climate sensitivity»

On the contrary, I want to separate out the effects on climate sensitivity estimation of varying GMST responses to different forcing agents, which is what MEA15 is about, from the effects of time - varying climate sensitivity in GISS - E2 - R.

Balmaseda et al suggest that the recent years may not have much effect on the climate sensitivity after all, and according to their analysis, it is the winds blowing over the oceans that may be responsible for the «slow - down» presented in the Economist.

If you altered the rate of conversion from cloud ice to snow instead / in addition could this have a larger effect on upper - level cloud, and therefore a larger effect on climate sensitivity?

Not exact matches

Earlier studies on the sensitivity of tropical cyclones to past climates have only analyzed the effect of changes in the solar radiation from orbital forcing on the formation of tropical cyclones, without considering the feedbacks associated to the consequent greening of the Sahara.

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

The whole CAGW — GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.

The Hansen et al study (2004) on target atmospheric CO2 and climate sensitivity is quite clear on this topic: equilibrium responses would double the GCM - based estimates, with very little to be said about transient effects.

Olson, R., et al. «What is the effect of unresolved internal climate variability on climate sensitivity estimates?.»

If you want to estimate climate sensitivity to doubling CO2, don't you need to estimate as precisely as possible the direct and indirect effects of each forcing on temperature trends?

Note that the last remark can go either way, as the solar signal can even be more enhanced at the cost of the sensitivity for the greenhouse signal... And from Hansen ea.: «Solar irradiance change has a strong spectral dependence [Lean, 2000], and resulting climate changes may include indirect effects of induced ozone change [RFCR; Haigh, 1999; Shindell et al., 1999a] and conceivably even cosmic ray effects on clouds [Dickinson, 1975].

For example, Gerlich and Tscheuschner (on the greenhouse effect) and Schwartz (on climate sensitivity) are given space out of all proportion with their scientific accomplishments, while mainstream researchers are given comparatively short shrift or completely ignored (case in point: James Annan on climate sensitivity).

The top priorities should be reducing uncertainties in climate sensitivity, getting a better understanding of the effect of climate change on atmospheric circulation (critical for understanding of regional climate change, changes in extremes) and reducing uncertainties in radiative forcing — particularly those associated with aerosols.

The warming effect of CO2 on climate is physically well - understood, and the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 is independently confirmed by paleoclimatic data, see e.g. Rohling et al. 2012 or the brand - new paper by Friedrich et al. 2016 (here is a nice write - up on this paper from Peter Hannam in the Sydney Morning Herald).

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

CO2 emissions in particular continue to increase at a rapid rate; ii) the effect of these gases is to warm the climate and it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years was in fact driven by these increases; and iii) the sensitivity of the climate is very likely large enough that serious consequences can be expected if carbon emissions continue on this path.

Temperature and CO2 are scaled relative to each other according to the physically expected CO2 effect on climate (i.e. the best estimate of transient climate sensitivity).

It is my understanding that the uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity to a nominal 2XCO2 forcing is primarily a function of the uncertainties in (1) future atmospheric aerosol concentrations; both sulfate - type (cooling) and black carbon - type (warming), (2) feedbacks associated with aerosol effects on the properties of clouds (e.g. will cloud droplets become more reflective?)

Just to follow - up on John Finn's question (# 10), if one puts in a rough value for the emissivity of the earth (whatever that might be), so one is no longer assuming it is a perfect blackbody, then does the resulting estimate for climate sensitivity correspond to what one would expect in the absence of any feedback effects?

Thanks Pete and Gavin for your response in # 116 that the estimates for future temperature change being discussed in the climate sensitivity studies (discussed in this thread) do not generally take into account the effect of increased temperature on initiating further natural carbon release.

There, they define climate sensitivity as how strong an effect doubling CO2 will have on average global temperature.

See figure 3 of Wigley et al (2005) «Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing,» J.Geo.Res.

Not sure if this is really consistent with Lindzen's original argument, but it would be interesting if it had a stronger effect on the resulting climate sensitivity.

So, what is being underestimated, and how can you be sure what the effects of the underestimate are on climate sensitivity to GHGs over where we live?

Finally, note that the effect of the last few years of data is smaller on the transient climate response than on climate sensitivity.

A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

IPCC makes all sorts of calculations on the deleterious effects of NOT halting CO2 emissions, based on the same climate sensitivity estimate and a bunch of model «scenarios» on CO2 increase.

Flanagan (06:01:32) And one quite indirect measurement of the CO2 effect on climate is the temperature record of the last seven years, and that measurement is strongly suggesting that the IPCC's conception of climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated.

3 - These assumptions themselves are based on assumptions (that internal forcings have no influence and that forcing is external and that we understand the effects this will have - inc. climate sensitivity) 4 - THESE assumptions are based on the assumption that we know enough about the system to make these sort of judgements.

This «climate sensitivity» not only depends on the direct effect of the GHGs themselves, but also on natural «climate feedback» mechanisms, particularly those due to clouds, water vapour, and snow cover.

The effects on upper ocean pH. The high climate sensitivity evidence from paleoclimate and models.

Alec Rawls, on the other hand, points out that if his criticism of Chapter 7 of the AR5 is valid, and it has been accepted by the authors of Chapter 7, then the value of climate sensitivity estimated by Nic Lewis is a MAXIMUM value, which could be less depending on the effect of clouds.

So while the consensus that CO2 is a «greenhouse» gas, meaning that like water vapor and methane it absorbs and radiates solar energy in known quanta, there is no consensus on the effect or «sensitivity» Earth's climate has to increases or decreases in it.

So even if the IPCC were right about climate sensitivity, which Lewis» submission makes clear it is not, and even if the programme were to reduce UK carbon emissions, which it will not, the UK would still be engaging at vast expense in an exercise which will have no effect on its alleged motivation, global warming.

Taking into account the possibility of longer oscillations has a small effect on the posterior of likelihood of various values of climate sensitivity.

(Note: the biggest issue is climate sensitivity, with a secondary issue being the magnitude of modes of natural internal variability on multi-decadal time scales, and tertiary issues associated model inadequacies in dealing with aerosol - cloud processes and solar indirect effects.)

It aims to provide a review of the literature on crop pollination, with a focus on the effects of climate change on pollinators important for global crop production, and to present an overview of available data on the temperature sensitivity of crop pollinators and entomophilous crops.

Climate sensitivity describes the effect that increases in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have on the global near - surface air temperature.

Design / methodology / approach: The analyses are based on the IPCC's own reports, the observed temperatures versus the IPCC model - calculated temperatures and the warming effects of greenhouse gases based on the critical studies of climate sensitivity (CS).

If the current instrumental record is a very poor constraint on climate sensitivity — which Figure 2 suggests is the case — then it's entirely possible for the additional decade of temperature data to have no effect whatsoever on estimates of sensitivity.

I think that climate blogs have rather argued that recent data are just natural variability, and thus don't have any effect on long - term trends nor sensitivity.

However, given the sensitivity of the Arctic to external forcing and the intense interest in the effects of aerosols on its climate, it is important to examine and quantify the effects of individual groups of anthropogenic forcing agents.

Practically, more deep - ocean involvement does have an effect on equilibrium climate sensitivity, but it has a much larger effect on transient climate sensitivity (which is a more relevant parameter for discussions of anthropogenically forced climate change).

«Errors in external forcing data (Santer et al's preferred explanation) Internal variability (which has been supported by numerous previous studies, including posts at CE) Values of CO2 climate sensitivity that are too high (interesting new post on this over at ClimateAudit) Missing physical processes in the climate models (e.g. solar indirect effects).»

As I recall he falls in the Tol / Curry / Lomborg school of focusing on the lower end of estimates of climate change sensitivity and related effects, the «sure, some warming may be happening and maybe humans are responsible for some of it but who's to say it will be bad?»

Weather and climate analyses focused on the combined effect of storms, unfrozen soil conditions, snow loads and sensitivity to forest fires.

Additionally, there are two more recent studing arguing based on tree ring data that after the conventional removal of the biological growth effect, trees do show an age - dependent climate sensitivity.

This new NASA paper builds upon those previous studies by better quantifying the efficiencies of different forcings over the historical period and the effect this has on energy budget approach climate sensitivity estimates.

The effect of CO2 on climate and temperatures is largely unknown, as for 38 years we have not advanced in constraining the uncertainty of its climate sensitivity.

So the decade earlier volcanic eruptions have no effect at all on my climate sensitivity estimate.

Both casual relationships are operative at all times: In the 19th and 20th centuries, the temperature - driving CO2 causal relationship amplified the original temperature effect, as one of several factors leading to a net positive feedback on temperature due to CO2 increase, and a climate sensitivity of about 3C for a doubling of CO2 — a number verified multiple times by calculation from proxy data from multiple epochs in Earths prehistoric past.